Income-tax Officer, V. M/s. Mohanlal & Brothers, Malegaon

ITA 559/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1504 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 133A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NO.559/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ITO, WARD - 2, MALEGAON . / APPELLANT V/S M/S. MOHANLAL & BROTHERS, PROP. SANJAY MOHANLAL CHHAJED, SHOP NO.11, VINOD MILL COMPOUND, SATANA NAKA, MALEGAON 423 105 PAN NO.ADBPC8163A . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, ADDL.CIT / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-01-2016 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM WHOLESALE TRADING BUSINESS IN TOBACCO, BIDDI, SNUFF, PERFUME STICKS, TEA POWER, SHAVING PROD UCT. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15-10-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.9,14,440/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S.147 O F THE I.T. ACT IN RESPONSE TO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT (INV .), UNIT- 1, PUNE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT RETURN FILED ON 15-10-2010 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148. THE AO COMPLETED THE / DATE OF HEARING :28.07.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:29.07.2016 2 ITA NO.559/PN/2016 ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 ON 26-03-2014 AND DETERM INED THE INCOME AT RS.44,97,341/- BY MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : SR.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTED GOODS AMOUNT RECEIVED RS.10,40,478/ - 2 UNACCOUNTED CASH COLLECTED FROM THE DEALER RS.19,57,620/ - 3 AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM MARKET BEING UNACCOUNTED CASH RS.4,34,803/ - 4 EXCESS CASH DECLARED DURING 133A ACTION RS.1,50,000/ - TOTAL RS.35,82,901/ - 3. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST 3 ITEMS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4 . 3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE AS S ESSMEN T ORDER AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS , THE ORDER O F MY LD. PREDECESSOR AND THE HON ' BLE ITAT I N APPELLANT ' S OWN CASE A . Y. 2009 - 10 . ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME , I T HAS BEEN NOTI C ED THAT SARGAM RETAILS PVT . LTD . ( SRPL ) IS A MANUFACTURER OF GAI CHAP JARDA AND S . MOHANLAL & BROTHERS , SOYEGAON , WHICH IS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF T HE APPELLANT I S A DEALER OF THE SAID PRODUCT OF SARGAM RETA I LS PV T . LTD . I T HAS ALSO BEEN N OT I CED FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132 ( 4 ) OF SHR I RAJESH O . MALPAN I, D I RECTOR OF SARGAM RETA I LS PVT . L TD . THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAS C OLLECTED PREM I UM ON SALE OF JARDA FROM THE DEALERS I N C A SH B Y CHA R G I NG LESS PR I CE OF THE P R O D UC T T O THE DEALERS. THE APPE L LANT HAS POIN T ED OU T T H A T THE NECESSARY COROLLA R Y OF THE SAME IS THAT THE DEALERS HAVE TO COLLECT P R EMIUM ON SALE OF THE PRODUCT TO VARIOUS RETAILERS IN C ASH AT THE R ATE FIXED BY SRPL . 4 . 4 THE PREMIUM ALLEGEDLY COLLECTED BY THE DE AL ERS I S TO BE HANDED OVE R TO THE SRPL . THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADD I TIONS OF RS. 1 9 , 5 7, 620/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PREMIUM PAID BY THE APPELLANT IN CASH T O SARGAM RETAILS PVT . LTD ., SANGAMNER. THE A.O. HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,40,478/- ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT COLLECTED AND SEN T TO SRPL AGAINST GOODS RETURNED/REJECTED. THESE ADDITIONS HAVE B EEN MADE BY THE A.O. ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON OA TH OF SHRI RAJESH MALPANI U/S. 132(4) IN SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASES OF M ALPANI GROUP. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THA T HE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME AND HAS NOT ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTIONS A S ALLEGED BY THE A.O., THEREFORE, ON THESE FACTS, IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE A.O. TO ALLOW CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PERSON TO THE APPEL LANT. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF CROSS EXAMINATION IN T HE SUBMISSION FILED. THE A.O. HAS STATED IN THE REPORT ON THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT THAT, NO CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI RAJESH MA LPANI WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4.5 IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITIONS, THE A.O. HAS RELIED O N THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HARSH WIN CHADHA AND HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVED WITH DIRECT EVIDENCE UNDER TH E INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE A.O. HAS RELIED ON THE ABOVE MENTION ED DECISION AS HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDE NCE, IN SUPPORT 3 ITA NO.559/PN/2016 OF THE ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH A . MALPANI AND HE HAS NOT ALLOWED CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI RAJESH MALPA NI TO THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF A DECISION IT HAS BE EN NOTICED THAT THE SAME IS ON THE PROVISIONS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATI ON ACT. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH UNLESS OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATIO N IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE A.O. TO THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THIS PROPOSITION OF LAW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I) CENTURION INVESTMENT AND INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO MPANY PVT. LTD. 318 ITR 24 (AT) (DEL) II) ORISSA CORPORATION 159 ITR 78 (SC). III) CIT VS. EASTERN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, 210 ITR 103 (COL.) IV) P.S. ABDUL MAJEED VS. AGIT & STO 209 ITR 821 (K ER) V) KALRA GHEE FACTORY VS. SALES TAX TRIBUNAL 167 IT R 498 (SC) VI) GARGI DIN JWALA PRASAD VS. CIT 96 ITR 97 4.6 FURTHER, THE HON'BLE PUNE ITAT ON SAME FACTS IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE FOR A. Y. 2009-10 HAS HELD INTER ALIA AS UNDE R:- '9. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF CASH PREMIUM IN RESPEC T OF GAI CHAP ZARDA AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S PARAKH AGENCY IN ITA NO. 1112/PN/2013, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014, CONSIDERED THE FACTS IN BRIEF VIDE PARA-3 AND 3.1 AS UNDER:- '3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF. ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED ON IN THE CASES OF MALPANI GROUP OF SANGMNER ON 06/10/2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SAID SEARCH, A STATEMENT ON OATH OF SHRI RAJESH O. M ALPANI WAS RECORDED 132(4) ON 03/12/2009. IN THE STATEMENT, THE DEPONENT HAS STATED THAT THE MALPANI GROUP HAS COLLECT ED CASH PREMIUM UPTO RS. 95/- PER BAG IN RESPECT OF SALE OF G AI CHAP ZARDA FROM SOME OF THE DEALERS N F. YS. 2008-09 AND 2 009-10 WHICH IS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OR SARGAM RETAIL PVT. LT D. FURTHER, IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) ON 03/1 2/2009, SHRI RAJESH O. MALPANI HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF CASH CO LLECTED FROM THE DEALER ON SALE OF GAI CHAP ZARDA AS UNDER:- A. Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 TOTAL UNACCOUNTED CASH COLLECTED (RS.) NAME OF DEALER QTY. (BAGS) UNACCOUNTED CASH COLLECTED (RS.) QTY. (BAGS) UNACCOUNTED CASH COLLECTED (RS.) PARAKH AGENCIES, NANDGAON PAN AAFFP6717 8478 7,77,190 111 90 11,03,915 18,81,105/- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, THE AO HAS ASKED TH E ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHETHER THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,77,19 0/- HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY OF THE AO, THE A SSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS WITH SARGAM RETAILS PVT. LTD. SANGAMNER AND 4 ITA NO.559/PN/2016 DENIED ANY SUCH PAYMENT OF RS.7,77,190/- TO SARGAM RE TAILS PVT. LTD. SANGAMNER. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THAT REPLY OF T HE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 7,77,190/- BY RELYING ON TH E STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF SHRI RAJESH D. MALPANI, DIREC FTORE OF SARGAM RETAILS PVT. LTD. DURING SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF THE SAID CO. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ADDITION, THE AO RELIED ON THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE ITAT, DELHI IN THE CASE OF HERSH WING CHADHA VS DDIT. THE AO , RELYING ON THE ABOVE DECISION OBSERVED THAT UNLIKE CRIMINAL PROC EEDINGS, THE CHARGE IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVED BEYOND DOUBT IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE TECHNICAL RULE CONTAINED IN THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME TAX P ROCEEDINGS. IN CLANDESTINE TRANSACTIONS, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE DIRECT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. THE AO, HAS TO ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, SURROUN DING CIRCUMSTANCES, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND EVID ENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3.1 THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSACTED 8478 BAGS WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,77,190/- HAS BEEN PAID TO SRPL TOWARDS PREMIUM PA ID IN CASH WHICH IS UNACCOUNTED. THE AO, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED THAT IN R ESPECT OF BALANCE QUANTITY OF 3122 BAGS THE PREMIUM @ 91.67/- PER BAG, I.E. RS.2,80,193/- WAS ALSO COLLECTED FROM THE MARKET AS UNA CCOUNTED CASH AND RETAINED WITH HIMSELF AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DENIED ANY SUCH COLLECTION AND REPLIED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, REJECTED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,86,193/- ON ACCOUNT O F UNACCOUNTED INCOME.' 10. THE TRIBUNAL, THEREAFTER, DELETED THE ADDITION UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. 'WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THE AO, BASED ON THE STATEMENT RECOR DED U/S 132(4) OF SHRI RAJESH 0. MALPANI, DIRECTOR OF SARGAM RETAILS PVT. LTD. MADE ADDITION OF RS. 7,77,190/- ON THE GRO UND THAT SARGAM RETAILS PVT. LTD. HAS COLLECTED PREMIUM ON SALE OF GAICHAP ZARDA FROM THE DEALERS IN CASH BY CHARGING LE SS PRICE OF THE PRODUCT TO THE DEALERS. WE FIND THE LD. CIT(A ) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT ALLOWED CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI RAJESH 0. MALPANI, D IRECTOR OF SARGAM RETAILS PVT. LTD. BY THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED BEFORE THE AO. HE FURTHER HELD TH AT ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON O ATH UNLESS OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVEN I F IT IS ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE EXCESS AMOUNT TO SARG AM RETAILS PVT. LTD., SAME ARE COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF SA RGAM RETAILS PVT. LTD. FROM VARIOUS RETAILERS AND THE RESULTANT INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE TRANSACTIONS WILL BE NIL. THIS REASONED FINDING BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION DOES NOT SUF FER FROM ANY INFIRMITY IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BR OUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. T HEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,77,190/- DELETED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IN OUR 5 ITA NO.559/PN/2016 OPINION IS JUSTIFIED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 B Y THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7.1 SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,86,193/- IS CONCER NED, WE FIND THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL BAGS TRANSACTED AND THE BAGS IN RESP ECT OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AT 8478 BAGS. THE LD . CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THIS ADDITION OF THE AO IS NO T SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO COULD NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE FIND ING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION, PRESUMPTION AND SUSPICION. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,86,193/- IN OUR OPINION, ALSO DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMIT Y. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7.2 SO FAR AS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3 IS CONCERNED , WE FIND FROM THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO DATED 05/03/2013 T HAT HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT NO CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI RAJESH O . MALPANI WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ' 11. THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AR E IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF M/S PARAKH AGENCY (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME P ARITY OF REASONING, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ID. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,51,445/- AND RS. 10,80,207/- THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS DISMISSED.' 4.7 THE FACTS BEING SIMILAR IN THE CURRENT YEAR RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE, SUP RA, FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 19,57,620/- AND RS. 10,40,478 /- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF SHRI RAJESH MA LPANI. 4.8 THE ADDITION OF RS.19,57,620/- AND RS. 10,40,478 /- IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED ON ANOTHER COUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OTHER CONTENTIONS, THAT EVEN IF AS PER THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJESH MALPANI, IT IS ACCEPTED T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS PAID THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO SRPL, THE SAME ARE COLLE CTED ON BEHALF OF SRPL FROM VARIOUS RETAILERS AND THE RESULTANT INCOM E OF THE APPELLANT ON THESE TRANSACTIONS IS NIL. IN SUPPORT OF TH IS CONTENTION, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE I TAT, PUNE IN THE CASE OF M/S. RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS, REFERRED TO IN HIS SUBMISS ION REPRODUCED ABOVE. THE A.O. HAS NOT REBUTTED THE ABOV E CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT ON THE ABOVE MENTI ONED ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS, NO INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY THE APPELLA NT IS ACCEPTED. 4.9 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 19,57,620/- AND RS. 10,40,478/ - AND THE SAME ARE DELETED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 6 ITA NO.559/PN/2016 4.10 AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.4,34,803/-, THE A.O. H AS MADE THE ADDITION CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TRANSACTED 19863 BAGS OF GAI CHAP JARDA, WHEREAS THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,57,62 0/- HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF 15635 BAGS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF SHRI RAJESH O. MALPANI. THE A.O. HAS WOR KED OUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL BAGS TRANSACTED AND THE BAGS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AT 4412 BAGS AND HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 4,34,803/- @ RS. 98.55 PER BAG. THIS ADDITION OF THE A.O. IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. NO SUCH EVIDENC E, SUPPORTING THE ADDITION HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SEARCH ACTION IN T HE CASE OF MALPANI GROUP. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD, ANY EVIDE NCE, IN THIS REGARD BY MAKING ENQUIRIES IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,34,803/ - IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION, PRE SUMPTION AND SUSPICION. THE HON'BLE ITAT IN ITS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009 -10, SUPRA, HAS DELETED ADDITION. THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,34,803/ - MA DE BY THE A.O. IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND ALSO IN VIE W OF HON'BLE ITAT DECISION IS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED AND HENCE D ELETED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 4. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE IT A NO.1746/PN/2012 ORDER DATED 20-02-2015 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING SIMILAR ADDITIONS. SINCE THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS DE LETED THE ADDITIONS, THEREFORE, THIS BEING A COVERED MATTER THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAN D FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS DECIDED IN FAOVUR O F THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A). 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ADMITTEDLY, THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER O F THE 7 ITA NO.559/PN/2016 TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECED ING ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE CIT(A), THEREF ORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE B Y THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, I FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-07-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 29 TH JULY, 2016. '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // // $ % //UE &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. $ %%* , * , SMC BENCH / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.